Put in Context
Generic Defense Reaction
This can only defend an attack with 3 or less base {p}.
Average Card Type Distribution
Average Attack Value:Β
2.752.754189955
Average Defense Value: Β
2.692.686236820
Hero
Enigma, Ledger of Ancestry
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Enigma, Ledger of Ancestry that play both.
Ira, Scarlet Revenger
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Ira, Scarlet Revenger that play both.
Zen, Tamer of Purpose
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Zen, Tamer of Purpose that play both.
New
Fang, Dracai of Blades
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Fang, Dracai of Blades that play both.
Equipment
Fyendal's Spring Tunic
65% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Fyendal's Spring Tunic that play both.
Traverse the Universe
48% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Traverse the Universe that play both.
Calming Gesture
43% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Calming Gesture that play both.
Silent Stilettos
30% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Silent Stilettos that play both.
Crown of Reflection
30% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Crown of Reflection that play both.
Phantasmal Footsteps
22% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Phantasmal Footsteps that play both.
Nullrune Gloves
20% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Nullrune Gloves that play both.
Meridian Pathway
20% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Meridian Pathway that play both.
Tide Flippers
15% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Tide Flippers that play both.
Nullrune Hood
13% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Nullrune Hood that play both.
Crown of Providence
12% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Crown of Providence that play both.
Mask of Momentum
12% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Mask of Momentum that play both.
Pouncing Paws
11% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Pouncing Paws that play both.
Flick Knives
11% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Flick Knives that play both.
Nullrune Boots
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Nullrune Boots that play both.
Stonewall Gauntlet
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Stonewall Gauntlet that play both.
Mage Master Boots
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Mage Master Boots that play both.
Braveforge Bracers
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Braveforge Bracers that play both.
Tiger Stripe Shuko
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Tiger Stripe Shuko that play both.
Grains of Bloodspill
8% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Grains of Bloodspill that play both.
Valiant Dynamo
7% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Valiant Dynamo that play both.
Refraction Bolters
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Refraction Bolters that play both.
Twelve Petal KΔαΉ£Δya
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Twelve Petal KΔαΉ£Δya that play both.
Weapon
Cosmo, Scroll of Ancestral Tapestry
42% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Cosmo, Scroll of Ancestral Tapestry that play both.
Harmonized Kodachi
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Harmonized Kodachi that play both.
Tiger Taming Khakkara
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Tiger Taming Khakkara that play both.
Action
Warmonger's Diplomacy
Avg. played: Β
2.872.869918699
44% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Warmonger's Diplomacy that play both.
Rage Specter
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
41% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Rage Specter that play both.
Restless Coalescence
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
39% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Restless Coalescence that play both.
Astral Etchings (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
32% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Astral Etchings (Red) that play both.
Spectral Manifestations (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
25% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Spectral Manifestations (Red) that play both.
Truce
Avg. played: Β
2.822.821229050
24% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Truce that play both.
The Weakest Link
Avg. played: Β
2.662.662735849
23% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and The Weakest Link that play both.
This Round's on Me
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
17% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and This Round's on Me that play both.
10,000 Year Reunion
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
8% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and 10,000 Year Reunion that play both.
Essence of Ancestry: Mind
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
7% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Essence of Ancestry: Mind that play both.
Dissolve Reality
Avg. played: Β
2.002.000000000
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Dissolve Reality that play both.
Sift (Blue)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Sift (Blue) that play both.
Hit and Run (Blue)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Hit and Run (Blue) that play both.
Attack Action
Command and Conquer
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
65% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Command and Conquer that play both.
Levels of Enlightenment
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
49% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Levels of Enlightenment that play both.
Phantasmaclasm
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
40% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Phantasmaclasm that play both.
Miraging Metamorph
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
34% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Miraging Metamorph that play both.
Enlightened Strike
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
32% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Enlightened Strike that play both.
Erase Face
Avg. played: Β
2.642.638443936
23% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Erase Face that play both.
Ripple Away
Avg. played: Β
2.742.739130435
23% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Ripple Away that play both.
Enigma Chimera (Blue)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
21% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Enigma Chimera (Blue) that play both.
Second Tenet of Chi: Wind
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
15% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Second Tenet of Chi: Wind that play both.
Spectral Prowler (Blue)
Avg. played: Β
2.722.716049383
14% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Spectral Prowler (Blue) that play both.
Spears of Surreality (Blue)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Spears of Surreality (Blue) that play both.
Spears of Surreality (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Spears of Surreality (Red) that play both.
Bittering Thorns (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Bittering Thorns (Red) that play both.
Cosmic Awakening
Avg. played: Β
2.112.114893617
8% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Cosmic Awakening that play both.
Censor
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
8% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Censor that play both.
Scar for a Scar (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
7% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Scar for a Scar (Red) that play both.
Hundred Winds (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Hundred Winds (Red) that play both.
Aspect of Tiger: Body
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Aspect of Tiger: Body that play both.
Chase the Tail
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Chase the Tail that play both.
Tiger Swipe
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Tiger Swipe that play both.
Stab Wound
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Stab Wound that play both.
Attack Reaction
Glint the Quicksilver
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Glint the Quicksilver that play both.
Blade Flurry
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
7% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Blade Flurry that play both.
Pummel (Red)
Avg. played: Β
2.002.000000000
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Pummel (Red) that play both.
Defense Reaction
Sink Below (Red)
Avg. played: Β
2.912.907741251
71% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Sink Below (Red) that play both.
Fate Foreseen
Avg. played: Β
2.842.841889117
34% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Fate Foreseen that play both.
That All You Got?
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and That All You Got? that play both.
Wax On (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Wax On (Red) that play both.
Wax Off
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Wax Off that play both.
Instant
Pass Over
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
52% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Pass Over that play both.
Homage to Ancestors
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
52% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Homage to Ancestors that play both.
Rising Sun, Setting Moon
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
52% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Rising Sun, Setting Moon that play both.
Preserve Tradition
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
51% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Preserve Tradition that play both.
Stir the Pot
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
50% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Stir the Pot that play both.
A Drop in the Ocean
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
48% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and A Drop in the Ocean that play both.
Path Well Traveled
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
43% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Path Well Traveled that play both.
Sacred Art: Immortal Lunar Shrine
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
42% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Sacred Art: Immortal Lunar Shrine that play both.
Manifestation of Miragai
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
42% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Manifestation of Miragai that play both.
The Grain that Tips the Scale
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
31% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and The Grain that Tips the Scale that play both.
Waxing Specter (Red)
Avg. played: Β
2.702.698795181
24% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Waxing Specter (Red) that play both.
Waning Vengeance (Red)
Avg. played: Β
2.732.732026144
19% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Waning Vengeance (Red) that play both.
Count Your Blessings (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
17% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Count Your Blessings (Red) that play both.
Count Your Blessings (Yellow)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
17% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Count Your Blessings (Yellow) that play both.
Sigil of Solace (Red)
Avg. played: Β
3.003.000000000
11% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Sigil of Solace (Red) that play both.
Snag
Avg. played: Β
2.412.405940594
10% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Snag that play both.
Dense Blue Mist
Avg. played: Β
2.002.000000000
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Dense Blue Mist that play both.
Oasis Respite (Red)
Avg. played: Β
2.642.636904762
9% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Oasis Respite (Red) that play both.
Sacred Art: Jade Tiger Domain
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
5% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Sacred Art: Jade Tiger Domain that play both.
Resource
Heart of Fyendal
Avg. played: Β
1.001.000000000
6% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Put in Context and Heart of Fyendal that play both.